How to do the pros do it ?

As Rippie says, given the shot / wardrobe / action, your options are certainly limited, but the result of your ADR looks and sounds anything but professional.

Now before you go off on us, please realize that we're not here to tear down your work or your process. There's absolutely nothing we'd gain by doing that, but we're also not here to lie to you and tell you the result is better than it is.

From your site:
It's been said that Hollywood would kill me for existing. The reason is that when you want to make films, you're not going to let anything stand in your way, including budgets. So you figure out better ways to make films that work for you. And people from Hollywood hate it. I get e-mails all the time- "that's not how we do things". I know it's not how "you" do things, but it's how "I" do things.
Click to expand...
The persecution complex just makes you look less professional.
 
I feel that it just needs more atmospheric sounds overlayed... you don't want it to sound too crisp and obvious...

Im no expert at all but thats my initial opinion.

Tom
 
El Director said:
http://starspictures.ning.com/video/adr-test
Click to expand...

The sound in that clip is anything but natural sounding. We have no breath sounds even though they are exercising, no exhales, grunts, or other audible effects on their voices as they jump and land, and most importantly of all, there's no change in presence and perspective with distance - their voices sound exactly the same in close-up as they do in medium and long shots. Oh, and the sync is seriously off. Frankly it looks dubbed. Sorry, as others have said, I don't mean to offend but facts is facts..
 
With some good planning and good technique the scene could have been done with a mic on a boom.

Also, the Foley sounds thin, there's a lot of Foley detail missing and there is no ambience.
 
I generally don't post in the audio forum (unless I need something :beer:), but I sort of feel compelled to do so here.

First of all, thanks to the pros who generously share their experience. We have a great many professionals in our midst, and we would do well to actually listen to them.

That being said, many of us often can't do it the way the pros would, because we lack the resources or experience. But I think they are sensitive to that, and in the case of this thread it should be noted that the original question was "how the pros do it", not "how do you do it in a way that you think it sounds like a pro did it"

Being an indie filmmaker means you have to adapt and sometimes improvise. But being a responsible and dedicated indie filmmaker means that you are prepared and you learn from those that have greater experience.

If it works for your purposes, great. But I have brought my company up from nothing to being marginally successful (commercially and creatively) by listening more than talking. The fact that I figured out how to build a makeshift windscreen for 5 bucks means nothing compared to the pearls that the experienced pros drop all over these boards (often patiently, and by necessity, repetitively) I'd buy a beer and a burger for any pro passing through my nape of the neck who will share their experience with me. (I might even show you how to build a zeppelin out of chicken wire, a stocking and air conditioning filters)

I guess my point is that there are people here who play the "A" game every day. We are lucky to have them. It's your business if you don't want to listen to them. But at least show them (and the rest of us) some respect by taking their experience into consideration before you start telling them how closed minded and set in their ways they are.
 
Jim Brennan said:
I'd buy a beer and a burger for any pro passing through my nape of the neck who will share their experience with me. (I might even show you how to build a zeppelin out of chicken wire, a stocking and air conditioning filters)
Click to expand...
Wow... my makeshift popscreen made from an embroidery hoop and a pair of stockings (that my wife is still looking for) seems much less impressive. - Tim
 
Jim Brennan said:
But being a responsible and dedicated indie filmmaker means that you are prepared and you learn from those that have greater experience.
Click to expand...
An adult is someone who learns from their mistakes.

A professional is someone who learns from the mistakes of others.

A true professional is someone who knows that there is always more to learn.
 
OK, you got jumped on a bit, but you mad some pretty tall claims. And you didn't really live up to your claim. It doesn't sound like what the OP was asking about, big budget Hollywood dialog. But to be fair it does sound better than a lot of what comes across my door. Sync is soft but (and this might be just the streaming) the image was soft also and with the actors hardly ever having face time close to the camera most of the clip is fine sync wise. You can make the voices live in the space better with some volume moves and some slapback echo, they are in a all hard surface area and there are no reflections... So thos two would help sell the space a lot better. Second you need a lot more Foley. We never hear hands slap the railing, and we don't hear a real landing, and they both sound the same. I'm guessing that he weighs a bit more than she does so he should land a bit harder/ deeper. His backpack makes no sound. Someone else mentioned breathing. It seems ironic that a reason you sited for going ADR was plains and trucks and it sounds like you added one in the amb. tracks.

I would agree that it sounds better than many low budget indi films. It certainly sounds better than BAD production sound.

And don't get defensive about the wrong thing. People didn't say you couldn't do it, they questioned your claim that it would sound as good as a big budget film. We also questioned the economics of this VS quality etc. If economically it works for you and the quality is what you want then go for it. I don't think this would make sense for most people.

There have been a few posts mentioning the Italian directors who dubbed everything. First, they did it for cold economic facts. Italy had almost no film market so to make any money those films were going to be dubbed anyway. They were not ADR'd they were dubbed. Also they were on very low budgets and any savings in shooting time was a big plus. Hong Kong action films are mostly shot MOS for the same reason. But with both groups the original sound recordings (if they had made them) would not have been used in any case. Your shooting an english language film with english speakers for an english speaking audience, a VERY different situation.
 
I don't mind and I'm all for learning. But I treat information like I do an actors idea. I analyze it, and decide if it's best for the flick. I won't just use an idea because someone says to. Is it cost effective for me? Will it prohibit what I'm doing with the camera? As has already been mentioned, these are just some of the things that need to be considered.
I guess I did come off a bit gung ho. What we were aiming for was to have our audio sound better then the majority of indie flicks that we see. Open Water anyone?
I'll up the levels on the foley. It's all there (backpack and all) but it got lost in the render. The final mix also has the dialouge levels change, but I hadn't considered the echo. I'll play with it and see.

I noticed an interesting phenomenon today. I was watching Open Water to see again how bad it sounded and after a couple of minutes, I just accepted the audio. I think consistency is the issue. Yeah, it all sounds pretty raw, but since it's all pretty raw, you ignore it. I think that when someone watches my film, at first they may say, "oh, that's ADR" But since it's all ADR, it should soon be forgotten. Also, everyone on here is pretty technical and can tell the difference like I can tell the difference between frame rates. Which there's nothing wrong with (it means you know what you're doing) But I don't think the average viewer will be able to tell, and that's who I'm ultimately after.
 
El Director said:
I noticed an interesting phenomenon today. I was watching Open Water to see again how bad it sounded and after a couple of minutes, I just accepted the audio. I think consistency is the issue. Yeah, it all sounds pretty raw, but since it's all pretty raw, you ignore it. I think that when someone watches my film, at first they may say, "oh, that's ADR" But since it's all ADR, it should soon be forgotten. Also, everyone on here is pretty technical and can tell the difference like I can tell the difference between frame rates. Which there's nothing wrong with (it means you know what you're doing) But I don't think the average viewer will be able to tell, and that's who I'm ultimately after.
Click to expand...

This is a really interesting argument for bad audio... that it's okay because the viewer will just accept it and move on, or that it's okay that it's bad as long as it's consistently bad. Less of an argument, more of an excuse, in my opinion. There have been many shorts and other projects posted in the forums by DVXUser members that I have not been able to watch all the way through because, after the first couple of minutes, I could not get past the bad audio.

Properly-executed ADR should not be obvious. Yes, trained ears will still be able to identify it, but it won't draw lots of attention. (But then, good ADR is used only to correct bits and pieces.) With what you've done, it sticks out like a sore thumb. There's so much there that just doesn't feel natural. And I wouldn't underestimate the average viewers... they may not be able to identify it, but they'll know that something is off. For me, it's terribly distracting and I don't think I could sit through 90 minutes of it.
 
Terry Rossio and Ted Elliott, on "wordplay.com" (which is primarily a screenwriting site, but much of it pertains to filmmaking in general) have huge set of excellent articles, one of which is called "Crap Plus One":

http://www.wordplayer.com/columns/wp06.Crap-plus-One.html

The gist of it is to *not* look at bad movies (or bad sound, or whatever), as somehow *encouraging* - as if to say "well that movie's sound sucked and it made a bundle (re: "Open Water"), therefore, if *my* movie has slightly *better* bad audio than that (crap+1), then *it's actually ok*. "Open Water" proved that! Woohoo! I'm good to go!

Read the article if you will. It's crystal-clear on this: "Crap Plus One" is a very easy self-excusing trap for aspiring filmmakers to fall into, and it's no kind of a road to success.
 
Ted Spencer said:
Read the article if you will. It's crystal-clear on this: "Crap Plus One" is a very easy self-excusing trap for aspiring filmmakers to fall into, and it's no kind of a road to success.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with the idea of finding good examples, and even if one can't 'match', at least the process of thinking about how one would match up, is educational.

However, on the other hand, for El Director's specific example, some number of posts passed by with 'you should ah boomed', 'you should ah done X'... then came a few helpful pointers...

I don't know El Director, outside of posts here or the like, so I don't know what El Director's circle of 'talent' is. If El Director had a good boom operator in the circle of associates, and said, 'nah', I don't need no stinking production sound... perhaps there would be room for criticism. Personally I'd have a hard time asking a 'pro' to give up their valuable time to do a no-budget, no-expectation-of-deferred-compensation, etc. And so I may choose something that I can 'manage' myself, so if there is anyone wasting anyone's time, it's myself.

And speaking of 'no-budget'... the 'engineering' question is what is the 'best' I can get out of what I have. In the example of El Director, would one boom operator suffice, or was there a need for 2, given boom operators then a need for someone to manage the sound so that's 3 people just for the audio... If El Director had no such resources, perhaps ADR is the 'optimal' solution... that may entail more work in the post-production audio... but that's what late nights and no social life are for...

Now back to crapy... one of the ironic implications of some of the comments on El Director's ADR's dialog is, it doesn't sound like 'on location'... no echo, no 'ambience', etc... in otherwords, it doesn't sound 'crappy' enough...

As for burying crappiness in 'noise'... works wonders for HP and other instrument manufacturers... as long as their instrument works to the given spec...
 
j1clark@ucsd.edu said:
...
And speaking of 'no-budget'... the 'engineering' question is what is the 'best' I can get out of what I have. In the example of El Director, would one boom operator suffice, or was there a need for 2, given boom operators then a need for someone to manage the sound so that's 3 people just for the audio... If El Director had no such resources, perhaps ADR is the 'optimal' solution... that may entail more work in the post-production audio... but that's what late nights and no social life are for...
Click to expand...
Or perhaps more effort should have been spent in preproduction lining up the assets required to do the job right. A mentor of mine many years ago said all business decisions boil down to a choice of "make" or "buy." If El Director didn't have the budget to buy professional sound, his other option was to secure a couple of committed people and spend some preproduction time training them to do the job right. Just because a flic is indy doesn't mean it has to be put together with the care of Micky Rooney excaliming "Let's raise money for the band by putting on a show! I can get Farmer Jones to lend us his barn and the girls can make costumes out of some old curtains we have around the house!"

Now back to crapy... one of the ironic implications of some of the comments on El Director's ADR's dialog is, it doesn't sound like 'on location'... no echo, no 'ambience', etc... in otherwords, it doesn't sound 'crappy' enough...
Click to expand...
It's not that it doesn't sound "crappy" enough - it's that it doesn't sound even remotely real. It destoys the "suspension of disbelief" that cinematic story-telling is all about.
 
Steve House said:
Or perhaps more effort should have been spent in preproduction lining up the assets required to do the job right. A mentor of mine many years ago said all business decisions boil down to a choice of "make" or "buy." If El Director didn't have the budget to buy professional sound, his other option was to secure a couple of committed people and spend some preproduction time training them to do the job right. Just because a flic is indy doesn't mean it has to be put together with the care of Micky Rooney excaliming "Let's raise money for the band by putting on a show! I can get Farmer Jones to lend us his barn and the girls can make costumes out of some old curtains we have around the house!"

It's not that it doesn't sound "crappy" enough - it's that it doesn't sound even remotely real. It destoys the "suspension of disbelief" that cinematic story-telling is all about.
Click to expand...

I think that we all do what we do for our own reasons. And there is certainly nothing "wrong" with going out and just shooting something because you feel like it. However, if your goal is to become a professional (with all the expectations thereof), then there is no more important lesson to learn that most of your work takes place before you roll. I work with many local indie filmmakers and give workshops on a regular basis, as well as view dozens and dozens of local indie films every year. Overwhelmingly, they falll into the category of not spending enough time and effort into proper planning.

It's one thing to ADR (or do anything else) because you want to. It's another to do it because you aren't planning effectively.

As always, our choices reveal our priorities...and results don't lie.
 
Steve House said:
"... and the girls can make costumes out of some old curtains we have around the house!"
Click to expand...

went-with-the-wind.jpg


I saw it in the window and just had to have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top